Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 2710 (ALL)

AWADHESH PANDIT v. STATE OF U. P.

2009-07-29

S.C.CHAURASIA

body2009
JUDGMENT S.C.• CHAURASIA, J.-Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners be taken on record. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the learned A.G.A. and perused the record. 3. This petition under section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the petitioners with the prayer that the impugned order dated 29.6.2009 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, Pollution (C.B.I.), Lucknow in Case No. 796 of 2009, State v. Rajeshwar Pandit and others, and the chargesheet relating to Case Crime No. 160 of 1999 under sections 452, 323, 352, 504, I.P.C. and 3 (1) (x), S.C. and S.T. Act, P.S. Mal, District Lucknow, may be quashed. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that no case under section 3(1) (x) of S.C. and S.T. Act has beer made out against the accused and hence, the charge-sheet and the impugned order dated 29.6.2009 deserve to be set-aside. 5. From the perusal of the record, it transpires that on the basis of the F.I.R lodged against the petitioners, the investigation was conducted and the evidence was collected during investigation. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner and one another person, namely, Rajeshwar Pandit, under sections 452, 323, 352, 504, I.P.C and 3(1) (x) of S.C and S.T. Act. The Competent Court, after considering the record, has taken cognizance of the offence and ordered to summon the accused. Since the accused did not attend the Court, the non-bailable warrants were ordered to be issued against them vide order dated 28/29.6.2009. The matter relates to the year 1999. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted on 14.12.1999. It appears that the cognizance was taken by the Competent Court on the said charge- sheet vide order dated 14.3.2000 and the accused were ordered to be summoned. Since the accused have not appeared in the Court• so far, non-bailable warrants have been ordered to be issued against them, in order to procure their attendance in the Court. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has confined his argument to the effect that no offence under section 3(1)(x) of S.C. and S.T. Act has been made out against the petitioners. The other sections of I.P.C. have also been mentioned in the charge-sheet. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has confined his argument to the effect that no offence under section 3(1)(x) of S.C. and S.T. Act has been made out against the petitioners. The other sections of I.P.C. have also been mentioned in the charge-sheet. The Competent Court, at an appropriate stage, will determine as to whether any prima facie case has been made out under section 3(1)(x) of S.C. and S.T. Act, against the accused. The powers under section 482, Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised to stifle the lawful prosecution. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the view that this petition lacks merit and it is dismissed accordingly. Petition Dismissed.